But AVCHD only supports 4:2:0, so I'm guessing they had to use something else if they wanted to offer 4:2:2.

32Mbps is outside the AVCHD spec, and so is 4:2:2. That's irrelevant. Both are well within the AVC spec.

So are Canon supposed to wait another two or three years for computers to get to the point where they can edit 3 or 4 streams of native AVCHD in realtime or release a camera now which should be perfectly capable of producing top rate HD pictures? It's highly debateable as to whether AVCHD is better than Mpeg2 at 40Mb/s plus bitrates anyway. AVCHD is optimised for low bandwidth, sub 15Mb/s use and this is where it excels. Most of those optimisations do nothing other than increase CPU load when it's used at high bit rates.
What happens in 3 years time, sensors will have moved on, codecs will change etc. There is a market that exists now for easy to edit, high quality HD cameras, Canon can't ignore that if they wish to stay in the pro market.

Edius Neo 2.5 is already offering to edit up to 3 or 4 streams of AVCHD at once.

Apparently editing AVC actually is manageable for professional purposes, at least somehow! Otherwise, a lot of Panasonic (and soon to be Sony) camera owners are in deep doo-doo. (I know it's a well kept secret, but Cineform still works pretty good - even better than it did on the computers we had back when HDV was new!)

Indeed, the lower the bitrate, the greater the image quality difference between AVC and MPEG-2 compression. That doesn't mean there is no point in going above 24Mbps with AVC, or that AVC is somehow worse than MPEG-2 at higher bitrates! I read something recently, that the gist of it boiled down to Sony concluding it was practical to get about the same image quality with AVC at 30-35Mbps as with MPEG-2 at 50Mbps, which is a pretty reasonable assessment to make. This isn't science fiction, nor very debatable really.

32Mbps is outside the AVCHD spec, and so is 4:2:2. That's irrelevant. Both are well within the AVC spec.

What spec is 422 outside of? It's OK for the EBU.

Chris, of course there is variability in what standards are acceptable, with the lower grade channels having lower grade standards (in general). But for those aiming high in broadcast to have a full EBU/BBC/Discovery approved camera in a sensible price bracket has long been on a lot of folks' wishlist. The EX cameras almost get there as does the Panny 301, but without add-ons there is still no sub $10k or even sub £10k that ticks all the boxes - but maybe there soon will be (with Scarlet if not the Canon!) And even with Scarlet, unless they have a non-RAW workflow I think a lot of broadcasters would still be pretty scared of it. MPEG (and HDCam, DVCPro, AVC) is familiar to the editors and therefore very desirable.
Steve

What happens in 3 years time, sensors will have moved on, codecs will change etc. There is a market that exists now for easy to edit, high quality HD cameras, Canon can't ignore that if they wish to stay in the pro market.

3 years from now (and quite awhile after-wards most likely) the HD codecs used for recording, in prosumer camcorders, from the major manufactures, will almost assuredly be essentially the same as they are right now - variations of DVCPRO, MPEG-2 and AVC. It's more than a bit of a stretch to imply that if Canon had gone with AVC in this new cam, they would somehow have effectively conceded their place in the pro market - not hardly.

What spec is 422 outside of?

AVCHD is a format that Sony and Panasonic came up with, that includes video encoding that is a pretty narrow subset of the full H.264/AVC/MPEG-4 Part 10 spec. 4:2:2 color steps outside the bounds of AVCHD, but is certainly not invalid for H.264/AVC/MPEG-4 Part 10 video encoding. The EBU had nothing to do with setting the H.264/AVC/MPEG-4 Part 10 or AVCHD specs (that I am aware of).

There's pictures on the Canon article which shows the form factor - not going to keep shoulder shooters happy - and also has size that indicates 1/3" chips and CCDs. Maybe the pictures were a red herring and they've done a complete redesign. After all the article predicts AVCHD codec!

I'm the author of that article. In it I have mentioned the strong possibility that yet
another new model waits in the wings; a shoulder mount version of the mock-up (http://www.dvinfo.net/features/canon-reveals-their-next-pro-video-cam.html#evolution) which is the subject of the article.

Sources tell me there will be ,in fact, a shoulder version. Again, as reported neither HDV or AVCHD.

I'm a bit disappointed Canon chose to go with MPEG-2 compression in their new cam. That choice seems a little short-sighted (to me), when you consider that this cam (and siblings) is likely to constitute Canon's pro camcorder offering for the next half decade.

It won't be long until AVC is just as easy to edit (give it a year or two) as MPEG-2 is today, and editing AVC is quite reasonably manageable currently.

With AVC encoding at 32Mbps, Canon could have offered very close to the same image quality (or better), with some very nice side benefits.

At 32Mbps, recording to low cost media reliably is much easier than at 50Mbps. Even just decent class-6 SDHC is adequate for recording at 32Mbps,.....
Most engineering decisions involve compromises, and you have to weigh up pros and cons.

On the side of 50Mbs is that it is a relatively tried and tested solution. It's already well supported by NLEs, etc. Coders are relatively easy to make, and relatively cheap therefore. It meets oft-quoted minimum recommended spec requirements, no arguments. Yet at the same time, it's low enough to be easily recorded onto fairly basic consumer media - class 6 SDHC of a decent brand should be OK, the EX/SDHC limitation has more to do with the adaptor and interface than the media itself.

So why move to AVC-HD? (Or a form of long-GOP AVC that is outside the AVC-HD spec to enable 4:2:2.) The ONLY advantage I can think of is a lower bitrate, so more minutes can be recorded per GB. But is it worth it?

Against that, moving outside AVC-HD specs begs the question of what NLE support will be like, certainly for the first year or two. Even if supported, performance is likely to be down compared to working with MPEG2. Coders will have to be complex to code in real time and get anything like equivalence at the 32Mbs you mention - and that likely means much more expensive and power hungry. Or they could be simpler and less powerful and get equivalence at (say) 40Mbs maybe - but is the 20% saving then really worth it?

An analogy may be the differences between engineering decisions for a basic family car and a high performance racing car. For the latter, it may be necessary (if expensive) to use lightweight alloys to reduce weight to get the performance, for the former, it's unlikely the gains would justify the cost. In this respect, the complexity of AVC-HD may be well worthwhile when coding for transmission (and bitrate= big money), but much less so if all it does is save a few GB of fairly cheap memory.

As far as the longer future goes, then my expectation would be that memory will come down further in price, and bitrate reduction for acquisition become even less of an issue. Yes, computing power will likely increase, but it seems far more sensible to use this to enable wavelet codecs such as JPEG2000.

In the meantime, MPEG2 seems a good compromise for this level of acquisition recording, H264 for transmission and squeezing content on to such as Blu-Ray. (In the latter case, it's much easier - the coding doesn't need to be real time.)

What the chip size will be remains to be seen. My feeling is that it SHOULD be 1/2" to really give Canon the edge, when they could claim to meet all the desired broadcast recommendations. If they do go for 1/3", my vote would remain with the EX - you can always add a nanoFlash to a 1/2" camera, you can't add 1/2" chips to a camera with a 422 codec!!

The announcement also must be a wake up call for Sony. I've made no secret that I like a lot about the PMW350, but think it should have the 50Mbs codec. Now that Canon have included that in a far, far cheaper camera, what do you think it's going to be like for a Sony salesman? How many times is he going to have to put up with hearing "but why doesn't it have the 50Mbs codec?" at a tradeshow?

Now that Canon have included that in a far, far cheaper camera, what do you think it's going to be like for a Sony salesman? How many times is he going to have to put up with hearing "but why doesn't it have the 50Mbs codec?" at a tradeshow?

Probably as many times as the Panasonic salesman hearing "why does it cost $3200/hr to shoot on a $5k camera?"

I have a question pertaining to 4:2:2 acquisition. As a event videographer what added benefits does this have over 4:2:0? I know it helps in vastly in the broadcast arena and also for chroma keying. As a event videographer what added benefits would this color space bring? Thanks!
Colors would contain less noise and the image could be processed more in post before 'falling apart.' The same thing that provides a smoother edge for chroma keying would also supply a smoothing looking fall off of, let's say, a color light on a stage or a presenter standing in front of a big power point presentation.


-Andrew

4:2:2 acquisition offers event videographers the same benefits it offers broadcasters - leeway in post production. Both event videographers and broadcasters deliver their final product encoded with 4:2:0 color. Actually, ENG for broadcast is event videography.

I'm assuming this will be Long GOP, not I-frame only?

Yeah, 50Mbps MPEG-2 intraframe only compression would be a bit rough.

just when I thought that previous Canon announcement was pretty average, it looks like they have been listening.
Looking forward to see some images both of the cam and of what it can produce

Colors would contain less noise and the image could be processed more in post before 'falling apart.' The same thing that provides a smoother edge for chroma keying would also supply a smoothing looking fall off of, let's say, a color light on a stage or a presenter standing in front of a big power point presentation.


-Andrew
Thanks for the explanation Andrew!

Don't suppose anyone has any info on when these cams might hit the shelf?
Steve

The difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is purely down to chroma resolution. It won't change the amount of chroma noise or the intensity of the colours. In interlace the difference is more pronounced and can be seen on fine strongly coloured edges as a slightly jagged edge. In progressive the difference is much less significant and often very hard to spot. Certainly 4:2:2 is preferable, but the camera will need good sensors to fully take advantage of it. Let's hope Canon don't disappoint!

50 mbits/s with mpeg2 is a darn good bitrate and even convergent design will tell you it is a perfect balance for high quality acquisition. The only time they suggest going higher is if you really need to know every frame is rock solid as perfect as the camera itself will allow. 35 mbits is already known as a pretty solid format and moving up to 50 mbits makes it even more rock solid.

Even if computers are capable of dealing with native AVCHD editing they will always be a step ahead with mpeg2 editing. If a system a few years from now can edit 3 streams of AVCHD then it would be able to handle 6 streams of mpeg2. The rendering will also be at least twice as fast which is a pretty big deal for a lot of professionals that need a quick turn around time. A lot of NLE's even have mpeg2 smart rendering so only the stuff you change gets rendered. I would rather render a project in 2 hours compared to 10 hours if I have a client waiting.

As for broadcast specs I wouldn't be as concerned about it. Stations can tell if you shot with a 4:2:0 camera but it is much harder to tell if you shot with a 1/2" camera. If you light carefully I doubt many people would notice. Sometimes there can be a slight difference in detail as most 1/2" or 2/3" cameras use full raster CCD's. Ironically HDCAM dumbs this down to a 1440x1080 3:1:1 color tape. So other then low light performance I expect the new Canon format to at least beat the pants off the HDCAM tape format.

Maybe I should finally sell my old XL1 to pay for the tax on this new camera. LOL

Maybe I should finally sell my old XL1 to pay for the tax on this new camera. LOL
Sounds like a sound business decision to me. ;0)

Don't suppose anyone has any info on when these cams might hit the shelf?That info will be included in the official Canon press release announcing the camera, whenever it is issued. Until then, nobody knows for sure (and those who do are restricted by NDA). So far, Canon has said only "sometime in 2010." Of course, DV Info Net always reports official news as it happens, so stay tuned to this site.

I hope they take a page from their consumer AVCHD line and include say 128GB or 256GB (to one-up the Sony NX cams.) on board flash memory.

What else would be nifty is a tape based acquisition system too... And also the ability to use removable media like SD cards.

3 types of storage....pie in the sky?

Sounds good to me Kyle. Any reason why that would be impractical? There may well be one, but I don't know it.
Steve

Take a look at the photos in my article (http://www.dvinfo.net/features/canon-reveals-their-next-pro-video-cam.html)... there's no tape transport mechanism on this model.

You know, I've sort of wondered at times, why Sony didn't take essentially a DVCAM approach (faster tape transport speed) and offer what amounts to recording XDCAM EX on MiniDV tape, years ago, shortly after HDV was first introduced. They could have done that right from the get-go with the Z1.

10-bit color would've been nice.

Chris, I did see the pictures in your article when you posted it originally. My thought was, it was just a rough mock up with the possibility of design changes still a reality.

If Canon was able to cover all the bases with tape, SD/CF, and built in storage, they would please a lot of people. Especially those of us who have some concerns about archiving, which currently is a lot easier with tape.

You know, I've sort of wondered at times, why Sony didn't take essentially a DVCAM approach (faster tape transport speed) and offer what amounts to recording XDCAM EX on MiniDV tape, ......
It's not as simple as that. DVCAM has a 50% higher linear speed, but everything else stays the same, all the speed increase does is give guard bands between the tracks to allow the possibility of insert editing on tape and better machine-machine compatibility.

To record the higher data rate to tape would require extra heads on an already small head drum. Possible, but likely to be expensive. Which is, I suspect, why the tape deck on the HVX200 was limited to 25Mbs and couldn't record DVCPro50 or DVCProHD.

My thought was, it was just a rough mock up with the possibility of design changes still a reality.I don't think so -- I'm confident that this is the final design, and there won't be any deviation to the form factor or its fundamental feature set. My basis for supposing this is the fact that the previous instances I'm aware of in which Canon has shown a non-working prototype (XL1, GL2 and XL H1), those occasions were very close to the actual introduction of production units (within weeks), with no physical change between prototypes and working models.


...why Sony didn't take essentially a DVCAM approach (faster tape transport speed) and offer what amounts to recording XDCAM EX on MiniDV tape, years ago, shortly after HDV was first introduced. As David says above, this really wasn't feasible. DV tape transports are limited to 25Mbps (that's why HDV had that bit rate, in fact). There are Panasonic and Sony tape transports that can accommodate 50Mbps and higher, but they are prohibitively expensive and therefore obsolete for our purposes here.

10-bit color would've been nice.

Another thing I've wondered about on occasion, is how much benefit there really is in acquiring images at 10 bits of precision, when video is that highly compressed. (Acquiring at 8 bits of precision does not preclude intermediate rendering using 10 bits of precision in post.) Just the other day, I was questioning (in my mind) if there really is any practical benefit to the 50Mbps flavor of AVC-I using 10 bits of precision (50Mbps AVC-I being effectively even more highly compressed than long-GOP MPEG-2 at the same bitrate, on the whole, since AVC-I gains none of the image quality benefits of using interframe compression, which is quite significant with most typical footage).

Any word on the MSRP?

MSRP: Once again, that info will be included in the official Canon press release announcing the camera, whenever it is issued. Until then, nobody knows for sure (and those who do are restricted by NDA). Of course, DV Info Net always reports official news as it happens, so stay tuned to this site.

So it looks like the possible official announcement of this camera(s) will be happening this coming Monday, February 8th in the UK at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA).

New Canon camera to be launched on 8 February - Pocket-lint (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/31265/canon-camera-announcement-8-february)

Are we excited yet or what? :)

I'll take the day off and get a bag of chips for the announcement.

That sounds more like it will be an announcement for a new DSLR with HD video capabilities.

A vDSLR with 4:2:2 50Mb/s Mpeg2.... that would be extremely interesting. Ahh the rumor mill at work.

Canon is going to make a camcorder that records 4:2:2 with MPEG-2 compression. That much we know. That doesn't mean they won't introduce more DSLRs with video capabilities, or that their new DSLRs will record 4:2:2 MPEG-2 encoded video (doesn't seem real likely). It is actually possible (more like incredibly likely) that Canon will introduce BOTH a camcorder and a new still cam in the same year! Remember, this is a pretty conservative company, so don't hold your breath waiting for them to make a camera that's an utterly huge departure from conventional. Sometimes speculation gets a bit carried away...

Chris

"Take a look at the photos in my article... "

I did, but that eyepiece looks a bit harsh to me, though i'm sure it's great for folks with square eyes. Meanwhile the body has the chain-saw look we've come to associate with the pricier XLHI changeable lens model.

Are these pictures supposed to be of the A1 update or the H1 update?

This is the XH replacement -- the XL will follow (we haven't seen it yet).

The latest version of the invite I've seen says "We are pleased to invite you to a Canon Consumer Imaging Event."

Does that sound like the announcement of a professional camcorder? If this was Sony I'd say no, as they wouldn't classify the camera(s) we've been discussing as a "consumer" camera, but I don't know if Canon has a "professional" imaging division.

Might this be the new Rebel and/or 60D?

I think what has people on the edge of their seat is that Vincent mentioned in the other thread to wait after the 8th and all will be revealed. This invite linked is on the 8th and immediately many think it's this event where the camera will be revealed. I heard from two people it can be a 4K projector so who knows till then.

The latest version of the invite I've seen says "We are pleased to invite you to a Canon Consumer Imaging Event."

Does that sound like the announcement of a professional camcorder? If this was Sony I'd say no, as they wouldn't classify the camera(s) we've been discussing as a "consumer" camera, but I don't know if Canon has a "professional" imaging division.

Might this be the new Rebel and/or 60D?

Their video division falls under their Consumer Imaging Group.

In any case, the Final Cut Pro SuperMeet event is today and we'll know about this camera by tonight as Canon is showing the first US unveiling of it there.

I hope my electricity doesn't go out here in Baltimore with the snow storm we are about to get. I'd love to be updated tonight on this new camera.

Looks like another example of Canon video cameras moving up in the world. 50Mbps 4:2:2 is a similar step up from HDV, in terms of quality and complexity, as HDV was from DV. However, I fear that it may be above my budget and computer-power. Also, it makes the gap between the Vixia/HV40 and the "pro" line even bigger.

Is it too much to hope for a camera about the size of an XM1/VX2000 that squeezes the best resolution possible out of 20-25 Mbps codecs? I know Canon could do it, but I wonder if they think they can make money from such a camera?

Hello Mark,

From my experience with the Nanoflash, 50mbps 4:2:2 is not a system strain at all, especially if it is full raster, (square pixles).

Will post photos from tonight as soon as I can, however there may be a bar or two in between me and the computer.

Good for you Chris. So we may have to wait until Monday.

Looks like i'm going to have to get drunk all weekend.

Have a great time tonight, Chris. If you get the chance, please ask them about my "HD-XM1" - Cheers!

Looks like another example of Canon video cameras moving up in the world. 50Mbps 4:2:2 is a similar step up from HDV, in terms of quality and complexity, as HDV was from DV. However, I fear that it may be above my budget and computer-power. Also, it makes the gap between the Vixia/HV40 and the "pro" line even bigger.

Is it too much to hope for a camera about the size of an XM1/VX2000 that squeezes the best resolution possible out of 20-25 Mbps codecs? I know Canon could do it, but I wonder if they think they can make money from such a camera?

A higher bitrate doesn't create more computations for the CPU (and HDDs can easily maintain thruput at way over 50Mbps). Editing the 50Mbps MPEG-2 out of this new Canon won't be any tougher for you than editing HDV out of an HV40.

As far as squeezing best image quality (assuming that's what you mean by resolution) out of a codec at 20-25Mbps, that would be AVCHD. No need to hope. Such cams already exist. Panasonic and now Sony make prosumer AVCHD cams that are similar in sizes to the XM1 and VX2000 (both in terms of chassis sizes and imaging chip sizes). The HMC150 doesn't shoot anything akin to "best resolution possible" (fairly low resolution imaging chips for an HD cam) but does shoot a very nice image otherwise. The HMC40 shoots a very high resolution image, and the new Sony AVCHD cams should as well. AVCHD is a lot tougher on CPUs, for editing purposes, though.

50Mbps 4:2:2 is a similar step up from HDV, in terms of quality and complexity, as HDV was from DV. However, I fear that it may be above my budget and computer-power......

Is it too much to hope for a camera about the size of an XM1/VX2000 that squeezes the best resolution possible out of 20-25 Mbps codecs?
It's as Robert says - 50Mbs MPEG2 should cause far fewer computer issues than going to AVC-HD. That's as true in the camera as the NLE, AVC-HD requires far more power to code than MPEG2, certainly to do it well and get significant bitrate savings and here power can mean both in the computing sense and the no of watts.

At one time, a move to AVC-HD was seen as the only way to be able to get HDV or better quality onto solid state media that cost less than P2 or SxS. That was proved untrue firstly when SDHC cards were used in the EX, then the JVC cameras using SDHC natively for the 35Mbs codec. The only advantage of going to AVC-HD is that a lower bitrate will mean more recorded minutes per GB, but with the price of consumer memory what it is I don't think it's worth it. (At least at the prosumer level, consumer cameras are a different matter.) Unless the spec is rewritten and extended, there is no form of AVC-HD that will support 4:2:2.

What the marketing people will do is another thing again. They may only put the 50Mbs codec into the higher end models, but theoretically there is no reason why it shouldn't be fairly cheap to implement into fairly low end models.

We don't know what media Canon's cam will record onto yet. Hopefully it will be something standard (not proprietary, like P2 or SxS). Class-6 SDHC won't cut it for recording at 50Mbps though. My guess is that it will be SDXC that works okay with "class-10" SDHC cards (which are at least reasonably affordable nowadays - not several hundreds of dollars for just a 16GB card, like with P2).

Class-6 SDHC won't cut it for recording at 50Mbps though. My guess is that it will be SDXC that works okay with "class-10" SDHC cards......
Class 6 SDHC should record basic 50Mbs with few problems - issues may come if used for any overcranking, though. The limitations on the EX are more to do with the adaptor and interface than basic card speed, but even allowing for those it will still allow a limited degree of overcranking (so faster than 35Mbs recording). If used in a device specifically designed for it's use, class 6 SDHC should work fine. Maybe a recommendation of class 6 for normal speed, class 10 for overcrank?

My own preference would be for Compact Flash, and even a fairly basic form such as Sandisk Extreme III should work with full 60fps overcrank to 50Mbs. (2.5x speed, and hence datarate, so recording at 125Mbs.) See the recommendations from Convergent Design regarding CF with the nanoFlash - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/convergent-design-nanoflash/468547-cf-card-matrix.html - they rate Extreme III at 180Mbs, which gives a nearly 50% safety margin, even for full overcrank.

But we'll soon see what it actually takes!